Do you have any cites? I don’t think this is an issue anywhere in the States. A church might get grants for public service, but it wouldn’t be related to the number of members.
As an ex-Catholic, I simply don’t believe the Church has any further claim on my soul. Pope says I’m theirs permanently; I say I’m free of them. He said, she said. I will believe myself before I’ll believe the Pope.
I feel ick to see anyone else’s religious beliefs and practices trashed disrespectfully. These things are sacred and precious to the people who are invested in them, and if they aren’t harming anyone, why harass them? I have very sharp disagreements with Catholic theology and everything, but I still respect them. I believe it’s important to disagree in a civilized and respectful way. I’m grateful to my parents for bringing me up to respect others; that has stayed with me as something of lasting value, though I have discarded the theology.
And then, should you wish to rejoin, there’s the matter of settling up your outstanding dues. 
While I respect anyone’s right to believe in anything they wish - so long as it does not hurt others - I feel no obligation to respect either beliefs that I consider irrational or intolerant, or the holders of such beliefs. This is especially easy because I repeatedly encounter “believers” who afford no such respect to my “lack of belief.”
My wife and I have had absolutely no problem teaching our kids about respect - and any number of other moral values and behaviors - without the christianity we we exposed to.
As far as I know, the only place where there is a government subsidy for churches is in Europe, and then only in a fairly limited number of countries. Whether or not the subsidy is tied to enrollment, I have no idea.
As to the Catholic situation, there are two separate issues:
One is theological. The belief is that Baptism confers an indelible character on the soul. This belief arose as theologians worked out what Baptism meant in the church, why it is administered, what were the results of Baptism, etc. For a person who does not believe, it is utterly irrelevant what the church believes or preaches, so it seems silly to get excited about it.
The other is clerical/historical. All the “one time” sacraments plus the first reception of the Eucharist in the church are recorded for historical purposes. Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, Ordination, and First Communion are all documented. This is not for any nefarious purpose. The church holds that certain functions and roles may only be performed by people who are Catholic (thus a need to record Baptism), and some roles (such as sponsoring another person at Baptism) require that a person be Confirmed. Whether a person has married or been ordained a priest affects other situations in the church, as well. It is not a matter of trying to “hold on” to anyone who left, but simply a record that an event has occurred so that if the issue is raised in some context, there is documentation of the event.
The church does not run out and try to drag people into the pews who have a baptismal certificate mouldering away in some ledger in a church in a town from which they moved away 50 years ago. The records are not “rolls.” The only way the church knows who is Catholic is if someone walks in and announces that they are Catholic. If that person then wants to get married in the church, they are required to get the parish where they were baptized to send a note to the parish where they wish to marry. If a person is asked to be a sponsor at Baptism, they are asked to provide a record of their Baptism and Confirmation. However, there is not master organization keeping track of the movements of (secretly fnord enrolled) Catholics to know who is “owned.”
Well, in the USA, churches don’t have to pay tax, even when they make profit, right?
I don’t know what it takes, minimally, to qualify as a church, but having a lot of members on your membership-rolls surely must help.
In some ways, being a member of a particular Church or religion is like being a member of a particular family. And it’s harder to stop being a member of your family than it is to quit the softball team or the book club.
I remember a German poster mention that if he basically ticked a box on some government form that he was a member of a certain church then some money was taken from his paycheck. This was voluntary but a lot of people even non believers go along with it as it means they can do the whole large church weddings and the like. Nothing like that exists in the UK or Ireland but I can’t speak for the rest of Europe.
I think it’s also important to realize that it’s impossible, after a certain age to really “leave” a belief system behind. If you were raised Catholic, with the catechisms and all, your spiritual perspective is forever colored by your introduction to the ideas of faith and spirituality. I was certainly raised Catholic, and have found it difficult to shake off certain impressions and viewpoints that I was introduced to at an early age.
You can leave the Church, as I have done, but I don’t know if the church ever really leaves you.
Intellectual curiosity- the same reason I care about things like whether penguins have knees (they do, btw).
As an ex-Catholic (I walked out of the Church 42 years ago and I have yet to see or hear anything to make me regret that decision) I cannot believe that anyone is debating this. If the Catholics want to believe they have left an indelible mark on me and I am still a Catholic, who has erred, that is their business.
The point that counts is that I do not consider myself one of them. Since I do not agree with their doctrines, I do not agree that they have any power to put indelible marks on me. They are deluding themslves if they think they can.
To give an analogy, what if I right now declare that I am the leader of the Druidic Church of long-range internet baptism? Under the doctrines of my Church, I have only to name an individual and say that he or she is baptized into our Druidic Church. I thereby place an indelible mark on them.
It does not matter whether or not the person knows they are being baptized or consents to it. After all, did I know or consent to my Catholic baptism?
So here I go, with my first long-range internet baptism. Whom shall it be?
Oh, I know! Formal Cardinal Joe Ratzinger, a.k.a. Pope Benedict!
Pope Benedict, I hereby Baptise you via the Iternet into the Druidic Church of Long-Range Baptism. I have now placed an indelible mark of our sacrament on your soul. You will now be a Druid, even if you refuse to accept it.
What do you hink the Pope would answer if I told him that?
Look people, if you believe they can place an indelible mark on your soul, then you are still a believing Catholic. Go to mass. If you are no longer a believing Catholic, then by definition, you do not believe they can place such a mark on you. You are out.
I don’t think even the Catholics have a problem with people doing mental masturbation 
The Mormons do exactly that, though with dead people instead of living people. Some people do take exception to the practice. I don’t know offhand if they’ve posthumously baptized any popes.
If you did that and wrote to the Pope to tell him so, I imagine you’d get some sort of form letter thanking you for writing to the Pope. The people who read his mail must see some interesting letters.
We’re not saying any of us believe that the Catholic Church, or any other religious organization, can place an indelible mark on anyone’s soul. We’re saying that the Catholic Church believes they can put an indelible mark on someone’s soul.
We’re also having a little fun with the concept
FWIW, the Catholic Church believes that most Christian baptisms (there are a few exceptions, IIRC) place an indelible mark on the soul, not just Catholic baptisms. So if someone who was baptized Orthodox or in most Protestant denominations wants to become Catholic, they don’t have to be baptized again.
I certainly don’t believe that I have some sort of indelible mark on my soul from being baptized as a baby. This is just one of many, many beliefs that I disagree with the Catholics about (there’s that whole Jesus==God thing, too)
We don’t do “exactly that.” We perform a ceremony in which we believe the purported beneficiary either accepts it or rejects it. In short, we say a prayer.
Speak for yourself. I have de-Catholicized myself quite thoroughly. When I take the Belief-O-Matic quiz, I consistently come up with Catholic at the bottom of the list.
Four things from my Catholic upbringing I have chosen to keep in the present, because I like them:
- Mary
- Civil Rights
- Frankincense
- Lace mantillas
I love lace mantillas! They still wear them in Korean churches. I think they’re quite elegant. Plus they’re just what you need on a bad hair day.
Sorry- that’s how the concept is often presented to non-Mormons.
I think we might of lived in the same house…cousins perhaps!!
And if only the Mormon church itself would be as understanding. From the article I was quoting:
The article goes on to give examples of other people who have asked to resign and the church has instead conducted church trials.
Overlooked this.
They actually do full baptisms for the dead in a temple ceremony. A living person is baptized (IIRC the wording) “for and behalf” of the dead person. We did do this in our early teens in Utah. You get dressed in white and then go into a large font. The priesthood holder says the aforementioned prayer, and then completely immerses you under water. This gets repeated 25 or so times (something like that) and then it’s the next person’s turn. The priesthood holder does hundreds of names, and it must seem quite repetitious.
Just bizarre. If someone has quit, they won’t care anymore, they can ignore the summons. It doesn’t make any sense to me. What does the church imagine they’re accomplishing by doing that?
Are the actions of the church causing the plaintiff financial loss? Are they causing him public embarrassment (living hundreds of miles from Salt Lake City)? Is their enrollment list even public?
I don’t see where the church is harming him at all. It seems that he went apostate and they basically ignored him. It was only when he came back and made a public scene about having his name removed that they decided to go through the one official act that permits them to remove his name–at which point he is now whining that they are honoring his request.
I have no problem with people outside a religious organization (either because they have never been a member or because they have chosen to leave) looking at religious rules as silly. I have a bit of a problem with people who have successfully removed themselves from a religious group making a great public display of personal angst because they want the religious organization to ignore its own theology and internal rules to perform an action that violates those rules when the [del]whiner[/del] person wants some sort of public acknowlwedgement that they are no longer a member.